Liner Notes
In this episode, Myles Jeffrey, Jo Hurt, and Kat Williams talk with Diane Davis, Susan Jarratt, and Debra (Debbie) Hawhee about her recent book, Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw (Chicago University Press, 2017). After opening remarks and introductions are made (0.0-4.25), Davis and Jarratt provide their readings of the book’s main arguments (4.26-6.57). Hawhee, Davis, and Jarratt then discuss the complicated but crucial role Aristotle’s work plays in Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw (6.58-12.06), leading to commentary on the relationship between alogos and pathos in both ancient and contemporary rhetoric (12.07-17.35). Finally, the hosts situate the book in current scholarly conversation by talking with the three scholars about how the Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw has impacted the fields of ancient studies, animal studies, rhetoric, and their own work (17.36-21.38), then discuss what the book makes possible in the field of rhetoric and the kinds of projects they may engage in using the book’s insights (21.39-29.18). To conclude the podcast, the three hosts note some undiscussed aspects of the book that readers may be interested in and give thanks to the contributors of the project (29.19-30.57).
Music featured in this episode is sampled from “Leaves, ft. Vidian” by airtone, (c) copyright 2016, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/34427
Transcript
[“Leaves” Music]
Myles: Welcome to Sonic Rhetoric Reviews, a series of podcasts from Enculturation where we discuss contemporary scholarly works about classical and medieval rhetoric and put various scholars in conversation with one another. In this series, we hope to remediate the genre of the scholarly book review, accomplishing everything a book review achieves by summarizing a recent book, situating it in contemporary scholarship, and offering thoughts about the future scholarship it makes possible.
[INTRODUCTION OF HOSTS]
Myles: We’re your hosts: PhD students at the University of Texas at Austin. I’m Myles Jeffrey. I’m a student in the English department, and I study narrative theory, adaptation, and novel theory. I’m particularly interested in screenplays and find them to be fascinating rhetorical objects. But my burgeoning interest in animal studies is what initially drew me to the book we will be discussing today.
Jo: And I’m Jo Hurt, and I’m a student in the Rhetoric and Writing Department. And, although I’m broadly interested in discourses of criminality and reform, affect studies, and new materialism, lately, I’ve been interested in what Greek mythology as an affective and situated compositional method might have to offer rhetorical studies.
Kat: And my name is Kat William. I’m a student in Communication Studies, and I specialize in rhetoric and language. My interests lie in the intersection of ideology, media studies, social justice, and popular culture, primarily in how rhetoric is used through media to disseminate hegemonic codes, which tend to work towards sustaining various kinds of inequality, but also how it can be used to resist and foster modes of social change.
[INTRODUCTION OF SCHOLARS]
Debbie: [fading in] So, when I was up for tenure at Illinois, my colleague, Catherine Prendergast, she was like, ‘do you know that you mentioned dogs in everything you wrote?’...there’s a dog on the cover, right? I didn't even pick that cover, but when Chicago sent it to me, I was like, ‘It’s perfect!’ So, dogs, I will say….[fading out]
Kat: That’s Debra Hawhee talking about her 2017 book, Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw.
Debbie: So I’m Debra Hawhee. I go by Debbie. I am a professor of English and of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, and I work on history of rhetoric, on bodies and rhetoric and sensation animals, and I am also working on climate rhetoric, as well.
Myles: Today, we’ll be talking with Debbie about her book, and how it pertains to animal studies and affect—both in rhetorical studies and beyond.
Debbie: When we pay really close attention to what non-human animals are doing in the texts and traditions of early rhetoric—especially I’m working in early Western rhetoric—they have a lot to tell us about feeling and sensation in relation to rhetoric and even help us think about a version of rhetorical theory that is itself relational across species.
Jo: You’ll also hear from a couple other scholars in rhetorical studies who will help us better understand what this book has meant in the field, and what it might make possible. The first is Dr. Diane Davis, who we hope can speak in particular to the work Debbie does on the rhetorics of nonhuman animals.
Diane: I'm professor and Chair of the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Texas at Austin. I work at intersections of rhetorical theory and continental philosophy, which just means that I try to read aspects of rhetorical theory through theoretical lenses developed in continental philosophy.
Kat: And the other is Dr. Susan Jarratt, an expert in ancient rhetoric who should be able to help us better understand how this book contributes to and opens up rhetorical scholarship on ancient Greece.
Susan: I'm Susan Jarratt, and I'm a professor emerita at the University of California in Irvine in the Department of Comparative Literature, and I spent my career working on the history of rhetoric, especially on ancient Greek rhetoric.
[MAIN ARGUMENTS OF BOOK]
Myles: Debbie framed the book in terms of how animals show up in early rhetorical texts, and what they can tell us about feeling, sensation, and cross-species relationships in rhetorical theory. Do you all want to add anything to that?
Jo: Only that I was struck by how she takes familiar figures and ideas from early rhetoric: Aristotle, the progymnasmata, writing manuals from the classical through medieval era, and, in sort of passing them through the filter of the animals that show up there, she paints a fresh and nuanced picture of early rhetorical history that has a lot to offer current dialogue around animals and affect. Susan and Diane felt similarly but had their own takes on what stood out in their readings.
Diane: I think the main argument is that rhetoric involves, at its most elemental level, both logos as speech and reason and alogos as sensation and perception, so that means at least three things. First, that rhetoric is not reducible to human language, that human language is but one instantiation of an unfathomable range of rhetorical engagement. Second, it means that the relation between logos and alogos is not oppositional. Humans and non-human animals share the mode of existence called alogos, which is already rhetorical. And, third, it means that when certain thinkers of rhetorical style from Aristotle to Erasmus encourage the use of animal imagery to bring sensation to life in the imagination, they're acknowledging that a major goal of human language is to communicate or even, she says, transmit sometimes the force or the energy of sensation.
Susan: There are two arguments that are connected with each other. The first one has to do with Aristotle’s theories of aesthesis, of sensation. And what Hawhee does is to trace this concept, this phenomenon, as it appears in Aristotle through a number of different texts, and she finds a kind of complex interplay of meanings in these texts. The other argument is that rhetoric scholars and historians of rhetoric should stop with Aristotle’s characterization of non-human animals as a-logos, a-logos.
[transition using “Leaves”]
[ARISTOTLE]
Kat: Both Diane and Susan point out the nuance of the arguments in this book, but they also both home in on the ways animal imagery breathes a sort of liveliness into ancient texts and ancient theory by bringing sensation to the fore, as well as both naming Aristotle as a key figure in that discussion.
Myles: Yeah, and Debbie had a lot to say about her perhaps… contentious relationship to Aristotle, and how he made his way into the book
Debbie: Aristotle, he haunts me and a lot of us, right? I tried to write this damn book without talking about Aristotle, and I couldn't do it! When I finally committed to writing the Aristotle chapter, it was toward the end; I was almost done with the book, and I was like ‘Okay, I just have to do this, and it changed the whole book.
Jo: I was really surprised to hear that the Aristotle chapter came about when she was almost done with the book because, as she says, his presence seems really integral to her project.
Myles: Yes, absolutely. And maybe that’s also because the Aristotle chapter is the first one in the book. In Chapter One, she uses careful reading of the animals in Aristotle’s work to introduce the concepts of alogos (which we’ll come back to in a few minutes), aisthēsis (or different forms of perception), and energeia (or the liveliness and energy that animals bring to the fore). These three concepts carry through the rest of her work.
Kat: Especially in how they work together to form what she calls “zoostylistics”: an approach to style that utilizes the capacities of alogos, aisthēsis, and energeia . Am I saying those right, Jo?
Jo: Yeah, just about! Energeia was spot-on. And that’s how I hear and say alogos in rhetorical classes, but, well, I’ll spare you an obnoxious lesson on Greek rules for syllable emphasis, but alogos should technically emphasize the AH: AH-log-os. It’s kind of hard to make that emphasis fit smoothly into the flow of English, though. But aisthēsis is a little different. For some reason, most English transliterations of the Greek letter eta are given as a macron over an e. But that letter makes a long a sound, so it’s actually ays-THAY-sis.
Kat: Ok, got it! Thanks! The way she brings alogos, aisthēsis, and energeia to bear on the rhetorical canon of style allows her to play with the terms as she also plays with concepts like memory and the progymnasmata elsewhere in the book, by both returning them to their ancient origins and suggesting what attention to animals can do to unlock new possibilities to bring language to life, and life to language.
Jo: She begins by examining Aristotle’s own stylistic engagement with animals, and once she explores Aristotle’s works in that first chapter, he not only carries into her discussion of zoostylistics but seems to permeate the rest of the book.
Myles: Definitely. She uses the word, “haunted” to describe her relationship to Aristotle, and I think the ways he haunts rhetorical history clearly show up in the book. Diane talked about how this offers us important new ways of approaching Aristotle in rhetorical history.
Diane: Debbie digs up in some of the field’s founding texts as evidence that rhetoric was not necessarily or always considered a specifically human or even linguistic operation. So, in digging up and framing this evidence in the way that she does, she presents us with parts of our own heritage that we have not yet properly inherited or, with a way to inherit it that we haven't yet been able to consider, or probably a little of both.
Kat: This re-framing of rhetorical history is critical to Debbie’s project here. She uses a method that she describes as pan-historiography, which “offers an expansive view of a cultural/disciplinary trend… resulting in a focus on durability and also change.” Her work on the history of rhetoric with respect to the animal and to sensation is not limited to Aristotle, but he’s certainly an important part of the conversation.
Debbie: To this point, my work has focused on trying to recover stories about rhetoric and histories of rhetoric that have been ignored but are secretly hiding in the texts that have not been ignored. Everybody was saying, ‘Since Aristotle, animals and humans have been seen as, you know, hierarchically related. There's so much else in those same texts like the Politics and what-not. There's a richness and even an ambiguity that might present a different, or, I argue, does present a different view of animal-human relations.
Jo: Susan also commented on what this book has to offer in uncovering new formulations of long-standing rhetorical ideas. And, unsurprisingly at this point, the challenges to rhetorical histories and traditions that she raises are especially connected to Aristotle.
Susan: I think it contributes a very interesting formulation about sensation, thought, cognition, impression-making in the rhetorical tradition, specifically in Aristotle. I think it takes up a topic of importance and interest in the long canon of rhetorical works, and I think it's something that people haven't really worked with before in rhetoric, and so I think it needed and deserved some attention.
[hard transition using “Leaves”]
[ALOGOS/PATHOS]
Myles: Another important topic that Debbie takes up and re-formulates is alogos.
Kat: Alogos refers to the other-than-speech and the other-than-rational capacities for rhetorical expression, but that’s not the way most people have understood the term historically. Hawhee’s book suggests we read the “a'' part differently. Susan Jarratt put it like this:
Susan: We shouldn't place so much weight on that privative character of the alpha, that, to be alogos can be something other than privative. That can be more, be more creative, and in this case, specifically, more feeling or active or lively, and that that should lead us to attend to the roles of animals more carefully in rhetoric’s texts.
Myles: Susan points out two things Debbie simultaneously does with alogos in Rhetoric in Tooth in Claw. First, she approaches alogos in terms of its own capacities, rather than in terms of its limitations when compared to logos. But she specifically does that by bringing forward the potential for finding pathos in animals through alogos. Early in the book, she opts to translate pathos as ‘feeling,’ but using queer theorist Ann Cvetkovich’s sense of feeling as an imprecise word that “retain[s] the ambiguity between feelings as embodied sensations and feelings as psychic or cognitive experiences.” Doing so not only obviates some of the arbitrary judgment calls a narrower definition might necessitate, but it also mirrors Debbie’s larger goal of expanding possibilities instead of closing them off. In a footnote, she mentions that she believes Cvetkovich’s willful handling of the “terminological reach” of these words is akin to the ancients’ treatment of the terms. All this is to say that Debbie’s project skillfully treats ambiguity as opportunity and tends to favor connections over distinctions.
Jo: So feeling and sensation get rolled in together as pathos and aesthesis. But there can also be distinctions between those terms and a couple other ideas that get bandied around in similar texts: affect and emotion. We asked Diane about the impact of these distinctions, and about how Rhetoric and Tooth and Claw connects them.
Diane: I’ll say there have been some intellectual scuffles, let’s say, about the specifics, like what's the difference between affect and emotion? Feelings? Sensations? And so on, and how much difference do those differences make? But whatever form it takes, it reenergizes the study of pathos in rhetorical studies, it highlights unconsciously persuasive bodily forces, and it emphasizes corporal exposedness.
Myles: That exposedness drives home just how large the rhetorical world can be when you accept that thinking in terms of alogos actually opens new doors rather than shuts them.
Kat: You know, this reminds me of an argument that Marxist communication scholar Dana Cloud makes in her book Reality Bites, that academia and social movements have ignored affect and see it as dangerous because it lies in the pre-cognitive realm and therefore can be easily exploited. While that’s true, Cloud says that, instead, we should embrace it because rationality only serves to privilege those who can “afford to ignore the brute realities of physical existence.” So, for example, anti-choice organizations have been effective in their use of grotesque images of fetuses because it makes the audience feel something. Debbie mentions in her book that “before the mind can think, the body knows.” So, attempting to only debunk or fact-check that rhetoric is an unfitting response. Instead, Cloud argues for frame-checking, perhaps by emphasizing the grotesque and tragic feelings associated with death from unsafe at-home or back-alley procedures that people without access to safe abortion care have to resort to. Of course, these arguments are still rational, but they can be employed in a non-rational, affective way that works for social justice. Like you said, Myles, alogos opens new doors rather than shuts them. Part of what Debbie is doing here is showing us that this isn’t a new concept, but something even ancient rhetors were keen to. In fact, she goes right back—again—to the father of rhetoric himself, Aristotle.
Debbie: So, in the De Anima, Aristotle compares phantasia to spectators looking at something dreadful in a picture. He talks about how, because of the distance, a lot of different feelings can come in, including pleasure, and he's very taken by that. But if the dreadful thing were right in front of us, it would be a very different, very sort of imminent, almost singular, almost unmixed set of feelings.
Myles: What Debbie just laid out for us suggests the rhetorical power of animals. A real lion roaring in front of us might cause us to experience the psychic pain of fear, but a speech that makes us conjure an image of a roaring lion in our mind’s eye might commingle that fear with excitement, pleasure, and the memory of previously encountered lions all at once.
Jo: [laughing] Her book is full of examples, and you chose to make one up?
Myles: I did, yeah… But, from bees and boars to wasps and wolves, the book lays out a long history of rhetorical animals.
Kat: And each of them, large or small, injects feeling, sensation, energy, and imagination into rhetorical history.
[hard transition using “Leaves”]
[ANIMAL STUDIES + ANCIENT STUDIES]
Jo: Something that all three of our interviewees stressed was that Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw complicates common assumptions about what topics are of value or are worthwhile for rhetoric scholars to engage. On one hand is ancient studies, which Susan mentioned.
Susan: I think there's some people who study rhetoric and communications, rhetorical theory, who don't feel that ancient studies are important, or they feel that they’re sort of static and maybe detract from doing more urgent contemporary kinds of study, and I disagree.
Jo: And, on the other hand is animal studies, which Diane discussed.
Diane: Rhetoric is supposed to be cultural, situated on the cultural side. And so to say ‘animal rhetorics’ is already to kind of touch off some conceptual explosions and challenge a long history of metaphysical prejudices.
Kat: It’s a pretty ambitious project, then, for Debbie to bring together two sub-disciplines that often tend to be brushed off, but she makes a convincing argument nonetheless.
Myles: She does! And Diane talked about how to understand that argument within the historical context she argues from, rather than trying to shoehorn the book into conversations where it doesn’t quite fit the way other perspectives—or even other disciplines—might expect it to.
Diane: I’ve seen some of this in reviews of the book: people who are in animal studies who are frustrated that at certain points Debbie doesn’t stop to argue with the ancient texts. They want all the new stuff in there. Well, let’s talk about the new stuff—talk about them in a way that articulates with a history and a legacy, rather than pretends to be brand new. That’s why I'm so careful to say we’re approaching this from different angles. Debbie’s trying to do something else. From her historical angle, that wouldn't make sense to stop and argue with the ancients. She's trying to show what has always been open there.
Jo: So where animal studies is often faced to the future like Diane noted—you know, it’s typically situated within a posthumanist philosophy—ancient studies is often viewed as oriented towards the past. And Debbie’s work is a great example of bringing the ancient world into the present and future, but she wants to investigate them as they were, on their own terms. That’s the pan-historiographical approach she brings to her arguments.
Myles: Right, and it’s essential because the work the ancients contributed in their lifetimes laid the foundations for many fields and schools of thought that we’ve continued to study today. And, even though rhetoric and language studies might be taken for granted or viewed as more niche disciplines, Debbie wants to show how rhetorical theory and practice nonetheless influence nearly everything else.
Debbie: And also to shake my finger at people in animal studies and other traditions that are going to comment on animals, and, you know, Western traditions need to pay attention to rhetoric because it was such a bedrock set of educational practices for things like law and literature and philosophy. Those are the poetic sort of traditions that followed Aristotle, and that’s where Homeric texts are super important and where animals, they do the work of bringing rhetoric to its senses, as I argue.
Kat: When asked how her book moves the needle for animal rhetorics and rhetorical studies, she emphasized that one of the most important things her book aims to accomplish is to demonstrate the importance of rhetorical studies to other disciplines like animal studies.
Debbie: I wanted to say, ‘hey, everybody, rhetoric existed, and it still does!’ You know, I think that a lot of us have to do that. It's hard to get traction as a rhetoric scholar outside of rhetoric. And so I think that it's up to all of us to try to be ambassadors for rhetoric and show how it's really important and central to a lot of things that are being talked about in humanities.
[hard transition using “Leaves”]
[CONCLUSION: FURTHER POSSIBILITIES]
Myles: So we’ve talked a little bit about how Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw interacts with classics, non-Western traditions, and animal studies, but each of the scholars we spoke with also talked about what it makes possible, specifically for the field of rhetoric.
Jo: Yeah, and there are a lot of things that this book opens up for rhetoric. Diane and Susan both spoke a little bit about how they might use aspects of Debbie’s arguments as the jumping-off points for their own inquiries and questions.
Diane: For my part, I might want to further interrogate the categories themselves, the clean distinction between them along with any presumption that non-human animals inhabit the one, but not the other.
Jo: But Diane recognizes that it goes beyond simply reconfiguring our understanding of animals.
Diane: If language were not conceived from the start as a specifically human capacity, if it were not immediately reduced to linguistics, in other words, then we'd be faced with the actual question of language. Is it even a capacity, is it necessarily representational, or is there a way to think about language that doesn't already presume a nature-culture dichotomy? From my angle, I would want to then dive into all of the research that shows that in animal studies. What species are doing what to challenge that very, that very distinction between the one and the other?
Kat: So the implications of work in animal rhetorics could be far-reaching; once we’ve moved away from traditional dichotomies such as nature and culture, we’re suddenly faced with larger questions like ‘what exactly are the differences between humans and non-human animals?’ And, as Diane asked earlier about distinction within sensation and affect, ‘what differences do those differences make?’
Myles: And also, to Diane’s other point, non-human animals communicate all the time. Is that language? Is there any reason to reduce language to strictly linguistic communication, and, if not, then what is language?
Jo: These questions of rethinking the relationships between humans and animals, as well as between linguistics and communication, remind me of some of the other ‘rethinkings’ happening in New Materialist scholarship. I’m thinking particularly of Karen Barad’s work, and how they open up broader notions of agents and of communication that trouble a lot of the humanist reductions that have haunted the kinds of relationships we’re talking about here. For instance, in their essay, “Posthumanist Performativity,” Barad rejects a humanist frame that’s dependent on static boundaries, hierarchizing boundaries, arguably like the ones that elevate the human over the animal, or linguistics over bodily and affective communication. They instead favor a frame that explores the relationships between practices through which “part of the world [is] making itself intelligible to another part” within a “field of possibilities [which] is not static or singular but rather is a dynamic and contingent multiplicity.” That idea of parts making themselves intelligible to other parts, I think, gets at just what we’ve been talking about.
Kat: Yes, absolutely! How, for instance, animals might make themselves intelligible to humans (or even vice versa), can be remade over and over again, especially when we expand the means of making oneself intelligible beyond the linguistic. I think Debbie’s book, in opening up questions of the relationships between animals and the means by which we encounter them, offers rhetorical studies a great many inroads for thinking about not only those animals, but about what constitutes communication.
Myles: For sure. And that’s not all. Susan brought up some very different ways Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw challenges rhetorical study, especially in our understanding of ancient Greek texts, and, in fact, offers one way to push that work forward, which she discovered during research for her own book.
Susan: I’m always, of course, very interested in what, you know, a very accomplished scholar of ancient Greek rhetoric has to say. But what I found was something really interesting about sacrifice, about animal sacrifice, and it led me to read in that area, which I hadn't done too much before, and Debbie’s book, and, also working on that reminded me of the fact that this Greco-Roman rhetoric all up until the Christian period was all happening during a period when the cult religions, the traditional religions, were based on animal sacrifice. So animal sacrifice was a very, very key element of culture, and so I think that that was a potential link.
Jo: You know, as classicist James Garland points out, the Greeks didn’t actually have a word for ‘religion.’
Myles: That can’t be right! I mean, this is the same language that has, like, five different words for ‘love,’ right? But they don’t have anything for religion?
Jo: They had at least eight different words for love. But it’s true: no word for religion! That’s not to say they didn’t have what we’d call today ‘religious practices.’ And, I should point out, this doesn’t go for the Romans: the word, “religion” itself comes from Latin. But the Greeks didn’t have a word for religion because their beliefs and practices about the gods were so intertwined with their daily lives, political obligations, and domestic habits that they didn’t see those beliefs and practices as a system unto itself. Anyway, I bring it up because, as Susan says, the culture was steeped in religious practices, inextricably tangled up with them, even, and animals were an integral part of those practices, both through sacrifice, as Susan says, and through the stories that Debbie herself brings up both in her discussion of fable in Chapter 3 and in the many mythological examples she pulls from ancient texts. These religiously charged, animal-filled stories, and the sacrificial practices they operated alongside, actually made a different kind of reality possible for the Greeks. As classicist Sarah Iles Johnston recently argued in her book, The Story of Myth, “these stories that we call myths are able, through their charm and their power, to make us imagine another reality that lies beyond our daily reality.”
Myles: Whoa, okay. So the stakes for rethinking animals might be so high as to offer us totally new ways of envisioning reality?
Kat: Actually, I think both Diane and Susan had things to say about how Debbie’s work helps us re-envision realities: both realities, widely construed, and realities of contemporary rhetorical scholarship.
Diane: So, when linguistic exchange is situated as one instantiation of an irreducible rhetorical existence, that is, when when rhetoric is understood to function as an undeclinable affectability and responsivity, it becomes possible to imagine our place in the biosphere and our relation to all living things in a very different way.
[fade out Diane speaking, fade in Susan]
Susan: …talk about what does it make possible? I think it makes possible, you know, many more books about animals in rhetoric. I think this book makes an argument that ancient studies really do remain important and vital and lively and hold out the potential for connections with contemporary interests in rhetoric and communications.
Kat: So this book functions as kind of a bridge between the study of animals in rhetoric and ancient studies. Debbie very effectively illustrates that these foundational texts were really conscious of animals in a way that the discipline has largely forgotten. She hopes that the book will connect with both scholars of ancient rhetorics, like Susan, and scholars of animal rhetorics, like Diane.
Debbie: I’m thinking even more of the people who are doing what I would call animal rhetoric, that is, non-human animals. You know, a turn to sensation and feeling that I think has been really important in the field. I’m happy to be part of that, I think I’m part of that, maybe?
[ENDING]
Jo: We definitely think Debbie is an important part of that work, and Susan and Diane have helped us to unpack and better understand how this phenomenal book meaningfully contributes not only to animal rhetorics, but so much more as well.
Myles: Absolutely. There are also plenty of other things this book has to offer that we just didn’t have time to cover today—
Jo: —from the progymnasmata to fables to imagination to memory and style to classical emblems, and so much more—
Kat: But our guests today have really helped us unpack some fundamental arguments around historiography, alogos, and animal rhetorics, as well as what Rhetoric in Tooth and Claw has to offer our field, and others, going forward.
[“Leaves” starts to fade in]
Myles: Thank you to Debbie Hawhee, Diane Davis, and Susan Jarratt for appearing in this episode.
Kat: And thanks to both the Digital Writing and Research Lab and to Moody College of Communications’ Digital Media Lab at UT Austin for providing resources to support this project.
Jo: Thank you, also, to our collaborator, Erin Akins, and Mark Longaker and our colleagues reviewing other contemporary books on classical and medieval rhetoric.
Myles: And, finally, thank you to Enculturation for hosting the Sonic Rhetoric Reviews podcast series.
[“Leaves” Music and Closing Walla]